■^ DOS 

.T863 
Copy 1 



ADMISSION OF KANSAS 



SPEECH 



/ OF 

HON. LYMAN TRUMBULL, OF ILLINOIS, 



/» 



DELIVERED 



IN THE SENATE OP THE UNITED STATES, JULY 2, 1856, 

On the Bill reported from the Committee on Territories to authorize the people 
of the Territory of Kansas to form a Constitution and State Government 
preparatory to their admission into the Union on an equal footing with the 
otiginal States, 



Mr. TRUMBULL said: Mr. President, I design 
to submit some views on this matter, I have 
been one of those who thought it ought to have 
been taken up and disposed of long ago, and have 
always voted to bring on this subject at the ear- 
liest lime proposed by anybody, but I do not 
know that it can make any particular difference 
whether the bill under consideration is passed to- 
night or to-morrow, and I see no propriety in 
remaining here all night for the purpose of taking' 
a vote on it. I would much prefer coming here 
to-morrow and finishing it, I therefore move that 
the Senate do now adjourn. (It was now half 
past ten o'clock.) 

The motion was not agreed to. 

Mr. TRUMBULL, Well, sir, if there be no 
disposition to adjourn, and there is a special ne- 
cessity for acting on tlie bill to-night, 1 suppose 
I can, perhaps, undergo the fatigue and inconve- 
nience as well as others, and will say what I have 
to say upon it at the present time. 

The bill, in many of its features, meets my ap- 
probation. It is a concession to what I conceive 
to be a correct principle as to the government of 
the Territories, It is an assumption, on the part 
of Congress, of the right to regulate and govern 
the Territories, and a repudiation of that term 
*' sovereignty," popular sovereignty, squatter 
sovereignty, or self-government, which has some- 
times been spoken of as existing in a Territory, 
and which in itself was, to my mind, always a 
contradiction in terms, I never could conceive 
how self-government could be conferred, and yet 
it has been insisted over and over again that the 
Kansas-Nebraska hill conferred the right of self- 
government on the people of the Territories. I 
never could understand how the people of a Ter- 
ritory could be sovereign; for, if sovereign, not 
being a State of the Union, they must, of neces- 
sity, be independent communities outside of the 
United States. There can be no such thing as 
sovereignty or self-government in a Territory of 
the United States, for the moment that either ex- 
ists it ceases to be a part of the United States. 

Early in the session, in a report submitted to 



the Senate by the chairman of the Committee 
on Territories, [Mr. Douglas,] the right of Con- 
gress to pass upon territorial laws is discussed 
and denied. The committee at that time forbore 
to make any examination of the objectionable laws 
said to have been passed by a body of men claim- 
ing to be a Legislative Assembly in the Territory 
ofKansas, on the ground that it was not competent 
for Congress to revise those laws. This was the 
language of the chairman of the committee on 
that occasion: 

" Your committee have not considered it any part of their 
duty to examine and review each enactment and provision 
o!" the large vohinie of laws adopted by the Legislature of 
Kansa.s upon almost every rightful subject of legislation, 
and affecting nearly every relation and interest in life, with 
a view either to their approval or disapproval by Congress, 
for the reason tliat they are local laws, confined in their 
operation to the internal concerns of tlie Territory, thecon- 
trol and management of which, hy the principles of the 
Federal constitution, as well ;is by the very terms of the 
Kansas Nebraska act, are confided to the people of the 
Territory, to be determined by themselves through their 
representatives in their local Legislature, and not by tiie 
Congress in which they have no representatives to give or 
witliliold their assent to the laws upon which their rights 
and liberties may all depend." 

This was the doctrine of the 12th of March 
last, when the report was submitted. Now, sir, 
we have submitted for our consideration a bill 
recommended by the same committee, which, 
without hesitation, treats as nullities many of the 
laws of this Territorial Legislature, assumes the 
right at once to blot them out — declares that they 
shall have no existence, I ain glad that the com- 
mittee have Ceased to follow that ignis fatuus dis- 
covered two years figo, ycleped self-government 
or popular sovereignty, and have concluded to 
return to the sound old doctrine of recognizing 
the authority of Congress over the Territories, 
and providing for its exercise. 

The eleventh section of the bill now before us 
declares that " until the completion of this act 
no other election shall be held in said Territory." 
The committee do not disregard the enactments 
of this Legislature upon the ground that it was 
an assemblage of men without authority; but 
they treat it as a valid Legislature, and they 






declare that " until the complete execution of this 
act )io other election shall be held in said Terri- 
tory." The territorial acts had provided for a 
genet-; 1 ejection in October next, when it was to 
be c!i terinined whether the people should have a 
coir en: on to form a State constitution, prepar- 
atrny tj admission into the Union — had provided 
for the appointment of judges of elections, clerks, 
&c. — had prescribed the manner of votinir, and 
the mode of making returns, and canvassing the 
votes; but this bill treats all that action as void, 
and declares that the people of the Territory shall 
hold no election on the 1st of October, as the 
territorial laws had provided. TJIien, it is now 
an admitted fact, on all sides of the Senate, that 
the Congress of the United States has authority 
to abrogate the laws of a Territorial Legislature, 
although in the organic act no such pov/er is re- 
served. 

The whole bill is framed without any regard 
to the wishes of the people of the Territory. A 
convention is called,or directed to iie calltd, with- 
out consulting them. Delegates to that conven- 
tion are to lie chosen upon a particular day; com- 
missioners are sent out to register the names of 
voters; the qualification of voters is prescribed; 
and the whole election is to be conducted, and 
returns are to be made, iri accordance with the 
rules and regulations pnscribed by Congress, 
which thus assumes the whole authority over the 
Territory. Sir, I congratulate the country that 
the false doctrine of sovereignty in a Territory, 
and self-government in a Territory, is repudiated 
by its authors. In submitting this bill to the 
consideration of the Senate the committee accom- 

Eany it by a written report; and, altliough "they 
ave recommended the passage of a bill which 
assumes autliority on the part of Congress to regu- 
late theTerritory,yet in the reportaccompanying 
the bill we find put forth the same false doctrine 
of territorial sovereignty or self-government, 
under the pretense of which the country has been 
convulsed for the last two years— adoctrine which 
has been refuted time and again throughout the 
country, and upon the floor of the Si-nate, but 
which seems to be reiterated as if the constant and 
frequent repetition of an erroneous proposition 
would eventually induce people to believe in its 
truth. I read froiri this report: 

" Tlie organic law of Kansas is identical with tliatof Ne- 
braska in all it.« pfovisions and piiiiciple.s. Each is based 
on that great fundamental principle of self-govcrnnieiu, 
wliicli underlies our whole systeiu of repuhlican iii>titu- 
lions, a> promulgated in the Declaration of Independence, 
consecrated by the blood of the Revolution, and consoli- 
dated and firmly establioheil by the Constitution of the 
United States. Each recognizes the right of the people 
thereof, while a Territory, to form and regulate tlieir own 
domi-stic institutions in their own way, subject only to the 
Constitution of the t'nited States.'' 

Is this true? Does the organic act of Kansas 
Territory recognize the right of the people therein, 
while a Territory, to form and regulate their own 
domestic institutions in their own way, subject 
only to the Constitution of the United States.' I 
aver that it does no such thing. Is it not part of 
the domestic institutions of a people to elect their 
own Governor.' Is there anything in the Con- 
stitution of the United^tates prohibiting the peo- 
ple of a Territory electing their own Governor.' 
Surely not. No such provision can be found; and 
yet the Kansas act declares that the President of 



the United States shall appoint the Governor. 
Notwithstanding that, this report says the prin- 
ciple of the Kansas act was to leave the people to 
regulate their own domestic institutions in their 
own way. I have shown on a former occasion 
that it did not do so, and I only show it now again 
to meet the ceaseless reiteration of that which is 
not warranted by the facte of the case, and I know 
no other way to meet the constant reiteration of 
error but by its constant exposure whenever and 
wherever made. The case of the Governor, 
already cited, is sufficient to show that the state- 
ment in the report is untrue. Gut, sir, it is not the 
only instance of a want of power in the people of 
Kansits to regulate their domestic affairs. A very 
important department in the government of every 
people i.s their Judiciary. It is a part of the do- 
mestic atfairs of every people to elect or appoint 
their own judges. There is nothing in the Con- 
stitution of the United States forbidding the peo- 
ple of a Territory doing this; but the Kansas- 
Ni^braska bill does not allow it. It declares that 
the President of the United States, by and with 
the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint 
the judges in Kansas Territory. There is no 
escape from this by telling me that they are United 
States judges. Thatatiempt was made afew days 
ago, o'n the floor of the Senate, and I exposed its 
fallacy by showins' that thr territorial judges had 
not only the jurisdiction of jud^'es of the United 
States courts in the States, but also of the judges 
of the State courts. There is no such thing as 
a territorial judge, corresponding to a judge of a 
State court, in tlie Territory of Kansas. The 
Kansas-Nebraska bill does not permit the people 
of Kansas to elect a territorial judge of any kind, 
except a mere judge of probate or a justice of the 
peace. 

Again, sir, is there anything in the Constitution 
of the United States which would prevent the 
people of a Territory from fixing the jurisdiction 
to be conferred on a justice of (he peace.' 1 ap- 
prehend not; but the Kansas-Nebraska bill says 
that justices of the peace in Kansas Territory 
shall have jurisdiction not exceed-ing §100. Now, 
what is meatit by the ceaseless reiteration of this 
false proposition, that the people of Kansas are 
left perfectly free to form and regulate their own 
domestic institutions in their own way, subject 
only to the ConstituliMU of the United States.' I 
could occupy your time from now until daylight 
in showing that the people of Kansas possess no 
such power luider the organic act. Why, sir, 
they cannot elect the clerk of a court. The clerks 
of the courts in Kansas are appointed by judges , 
!j who are appointed by the President. They can- 
not elect a sheriff to perform any higher duty than 
to wait on ajusticeof the peace or a probate court. 
The officer to wait upon and serve process issued 
by the district and supreme court is a marshal 
appointed by the President. Is it not, then, a 
most palpable contradiction a — most barefaced 
assumption, for any one to say that an organic 
act which takes from the people the right to elect 
their own executive and their own judiciary, two 
branches of the Government, is an act which 
confers upon them the right to regulate their own 
domestic institutions in their own way.' And yet 
this report makes this assumption, not only in 
the clause which I have read, but, upon the next 
j tgc, it asserts the same proposition again, and 



lest it should escape the attention of the reader, 
the second insertion is italicized. The advocates 
of the Kansas organic act, while professing to 
leave the people of the Territory free to govern 
themselves, placed over tliem a Governor and 
judges without their consent; and now, with sim- 
ilar professions on their lips, the Committee on 
Territiiries, through their chairman, [Mr. Doug- 
las,] recommend the passage of the bill annul- 
ling nuuiy of the acts which a Territorial Legis- 
lature, regarded by them as valid, has passed. 

What could be more inconsistent? For my 
own part, [ have always believed, that Congress 
possfssed, and ought to exercise, the power of 
making needful rules and regulations for the gov- 
ernment of the Territories, leaving to the people 
thereof the management of tlieir local affairs in 
subordination to the superior authority of Con- 
gress, which has the right at any lime to inter- 
fere and abi-ogate unjust or improper legislation. 
And such is the position the Territorial Commit- 
tee have assumed by their acts, though they deny 
it ia their report. The committee have devoted 
particular attention to the examination of a bill 
which I introduced into the Senate .some time 
since, to restore order and peace in Kansas, the 
object of wliich bill was to extend tlie laws of 
Nebraska Territory over Kansas, and al)olish all 
officers and all the laws, or pretended laws, now 
existing in Kansas Territory. To get rid of the 
existing disastrous state of things, of the strife 
and quarrels which were leading to civil war in 
that Territory, was my object. The author of 
this report seeks to make out of tliat bill an in- 
dorsement of the so-called grrat principle of the 
Kansas-Nebraska act. But the Senator is equally 
as unfortunate in that attempt, as in the otber, 
to make it ajipear that the people of Kansas 
Territory possessed llie right of self-govern- 
ment. As there is no such great ])rinciple in the 
Kansas-Nebraska act as is a.ssumed, of course 
the bill which I introduced could not indorse any 
such principle. Tiiat the people, while in a ter- 
ritorial condition, liave not the right to regulate 
the suliject of slavery, 1 have aliuady shown in 
a discussion which took place between my col- 
league and myself, some time ago. 1 know it is 
coniended, in some portions of the country, that 
under the Kansas-Nebraska act the people gf 
those Territories have the right to regulate the 
subject of slavery for themselves; but that is not 
the case while in a teriitorial condition; or, if it 
be the case, its author will not avow it. He re- 
fuses toanswer, when di.sliiiclly interrogated upon 
that point, wlielher the rerritorial Lgislature 
has a right to introduce or exclude slaver'/. He 
says It is a judicial question. He rel'uses to 
answer the other question — whether slavery may 
be taken into a i erritory, and exist there in the 
absence of any territorial legistion on the subject. 
He Says that also is a judicial queslit)n. Then, 
if there is any great principle m the Kansas- 
Nebraska act, it is a judicial question, and the 
great principle, so much talked about, is an agree- 
ment among the friends of that measure to sub- 
mit a judicial question to the decision of the 
Supreme Court! Wonderful discovery! That 
is the great principle for whicli our fathers fought, 
" which underlies our whole system of repuolican 
instituiions, as promulgated ni the Declaration of 
Independence." If we are to believe what the 



framers of the Declaration of Independence them- 
selves said, they went to war for no such cause, 
but to extricate themselves from a condition, in 
many respects not unlike that imposed upon the 
people of Kansas by their organic act. Wliy, 
sir, the Territory of Kansas is very much in the 
condition, under the Kansas-Nebraska bill, of the 
colonies before the Revolution. In fact, the peo- 
ple of Kansas have not as extensive privileges as 
the people of some of the colonies enjoyed. In 
several of the colonies the Governors were elected 
annually, by the people themselves. Our fathers 
gave, in the Declaration of Independence, the 
reasons why they declared it, and why they were 
willing to risk their lives and fortunes and honor 
to maintain it. In recapitulating the wrongs 
which were imposed upon them, alluding to the 
King, they say: 

" He has made judges dependent on his will alone for 
the tenure ol' their olRces, and the amount and payment 
of llieir salarifis." 

Just so the judges in Kansas are made de- 
pendent on the will of Congress and the Presi- 
dent for the tenure of their offices and the 
amount and payment of their salaries. To get 
rid of such judges was one of the causes for 
which our fathers went to war, and not to estab- 
lish any such nonsensical principle as that a con- 
troverted matter should be regarded as a judicial 
question to be submitted to thecourts fordecision. 
It is a libel on the Declaration of Independence, 
and on our ancestors who tVamed it, to say that 
tney went to war to establish any such principle 
as that contained in the Kansas-Nebraska act, 
when they themselves have set forth in their 
declaration the reasons which impelled them to 
the act, and among others have stated a main one 
to have been, to escape from the imposition of 
foreign judges, precisely similar to those imposed 
by the oiganic act upon the pi ople of Kansas. 

To give color to the statement that the bill 1 in- 
troduced indorses the Kansas-Nebraska act, it is 
said thai the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska 
Were organized under a similar law, and that, 
vviiiletliere has been peace in Nebraska, there has 
Ijeeii strife in Kansas, and thai this is conclusive 
evidence that there is no fault in the organic law. 
It proves no siie.h thing. It simply shows that, 
in spite of the defect in the organic act, there iias 
been [leace m Nebraska. It shows that, I admit. 
The Pi-esident of the United States, in one of his 
messages sulunitted to Congress, resorted to this 
argument to prove that the Kansas-Nebraska bill 
was right. Why, sir, I mii^ht, with equal pro- 
priety, instance the cases ot'Oiiio, of Indiana, of 
ilinois, of Michigan, of Wisconsin, of Iowa, of 
Minnesota, and of all the other Territories from 
which slavery was excluded by act of Congress, 
and where peace always prevailed, to show that 
their quiet settlement was owing to the fact that 
slavery was excluded from them. If we are go- 
ing for exauijiles, they are as ten to one against 
those who quot>' the case of Nebraska. The dif- 
ference between Nebraska and Kansas wa^s ihis. 
Tile same defect existed in the organic act in ref- 
erence to each Territory ; but, as was disclosed 
here yt;sterday by the Senator from Kentucky, 
[iVlr. l'iioMPsoN,J when the original bill which 
provided for tne organization of bui one Territory 
was So amended as to make iwo Terrilories, it 
was wan the understanding that the northern 



Territory, Nebraska, should be surrendered to 
the people of the North, and that in the south- 
ern Territory of Kansas, the South should take 
its chance. 

I admit that the repeal of the Missouri com- 
promise would have done no harm, except that 
flowing from a breach of good faith between the 
different sections of the Union, if no attempt had 
been made to introduce slavery into any part of 
the Territory covered by it; and had) not that 
repeal taken place no such attempt would have 
been made. Then the origin of all the difficulty 
is the repeal of the Missouri compromise ; because, 
unless that had been repealed, there would have 
been no effort to introduce slavery into Kansas, 
as there was not into Nebraska; the Territories 
would have been settled in peace, and we should 
have been spared the present difficulties. Again: it 
is said in this report, in reference to the bill intro- 
duced by me: 

"The second section provUlos that all offices in Kansas 
shall be vacated, and recogiuzes the validitij and binding 
force of the acti jiasscd hythe Territorial Legislature of Kan 
sas, but contains a repealing clause to take ' effect on the 
passage of this act.' " 

This statement is not true. The second section 
does not recognize the validity and binding force 
of the acts passed by the Territorial Legislature of 
Kansas. It was drawn with express reference, 
and withaparticulardesign, not to recognize those 
legislative acts as binding. Let me read the con- 
cluding portion of it: 

" And all the acts and pioeeedings of any body of men 
heretofore assembled in the Territory of Kansas, and claim 
ingto be a Territorial Legislature thereof, shall cease to have 
effect upon the passage of this act." 

Does that recognize the body as a valid Legisla- 
ture? Look at the cautious language employed. 
It speaks of them as a body of men claiming to 
be a Legislature, but it does not admit the validity 
of that Legislature or of its acts: nor does the con- 
cluding line admit it. That is said to be an admis- 
sion that the acts and proceedings inust have been 
binding before they ceased to have effect. They 
had a forced effect, I admit. They had no legal 
effect, but they had that force in the Territory of 
Kansas which the strong arm of power, of arbi- 
trary power, gave them, and that was all the 
force they did have. The public opinion of the 
Territory was against them; they never could be 
enforced, and never were enforced; but when 
backed by an army of border men from Missouri, 
or by the bayonets of the United Stales. That 
was the force which they had, and it was to pre- 
vent the President of the United States from abus- 
ing his power in attempting to enforce such acts, 
that this clause was framed. 

My object in proposing to place the people of 
Kansas under the jurisdiction of Nebraska, was 
to prevent a state of anarchy in Kansas — to have 
some laws for the temporary protection of its in- 
habitants, till Congress could adopt measures for 
their permanent relief, and at the same time to 
get rid of the barbarous, inhuman, and cruel offi- 
cials, or pretended officials, who, under color of 
law, with a lawless jjosse, were roaming over the 
Territory, harassing, imprisoning, robbing, and 
murdering its inhabitants. 

In regard to the measure introduced by the Sen- 
ator from Georgia, and recommended by the com- 
mittee, I regard it, in many respects, as a most 



excellent bill; but we must look at it in the light 
of surrounding circumstances. In the condition 
of things now existing in the country, I do not 
consider it a safe measure, nor one which will 
give peace; and I will briefly give my reasons. 
First, it affords no immediate relief. It provides 
for taking a census of the voters in the Territory, 
for an election in November, and the assembling 
of a convention in December to form, if it thinks 
proper, a constitution for Kansas, preparatory to 
its admission into the Union as a State. It is 
not until December that the convention is to ineet. 
It would take some time to form a constitution. 
I suppose that constitution would liave to be rati- 
fied by the people before it should become valid. 
No provision is made in this bill for such ratifica- 
tion. This is objectionable to my mind. I do 
not think the people should be bound by a con- 
stitution without passing upon it directly them- 
selves. That is the practice in remodeling con- 
stitutions in the States. We have, within a few 
years, amended the constitution of Illinois. 

The people called a convention. That conven- 
tion remodeled our constitution, and then sub- 
mitted it to Ihe people for approval or rejection. 
A majority voted for it, and it became the fun- 
damental law of the State, otherwise it would have 
had no effect. The convention did not assume to 
fix the fundairicntal law for the people of the State 
of Illinois, without submitting it directly to their 
decision. It looks to me too much like the exer- 
cise of arbitrary authority to vest in the hands of 
the fifty-two men who are authorized to be elected 
by this act, the power to fasten any sort of a con- 
stitution upon the people of Kansas, without 
allowing them to pass directly upon it. It is quite 
enough for Congress to call a convention without 
being asked by the people of that Territory, or 
consulting them at all; but it is going a little too 
far to allow the convention, v.'hen assembled, to 
fix a constitution irrevocably upon the people of 
the Territory. There is nothing said in this bill, 
so far as I have discovered, about submitting the 
constitution which is to be framed, to the people, 
for their sanction or rejection. Perhaps the con- 
vention would have the right to submit it if it 
should think proper, but it is certainly not com- 
pelled to do so according to the provisions of the 
bin. If it is to be submitted to the people it will 
take time, and it will not be until some lime next 
year that this new constitution, affirmed and rat- 
ified by the people, would be submitted here to 
Congress for its acceptance; and what is to be the 
condition of that people in the mean time? 

Now, sir, 1 believe it to be our duty to adopt 
some measure of immediate relief, and not leave 
the inhabitants of Kansas in their present condi- j 

tion for months to come. There is no govern- y 

ment there; there is no protection there for life, 
or liberty, or property. The guarantees of the 
Constitution are trodden under foot. No man 
knows when he is safe. The highways leading 
to the Territory are beset by armed men. There 
is no peace or safety in the Territory for free- 
State settlers. I say that we need some measure 
which will afford immediate relief. The bill be- 
fore us does not profess to give it. It will take 
six, and probably twelve, months to carry it into 
effect; and, in the mean lime, the inhabitants of 
the Territory are left to struggle along as best 
they may, subject to all the indignities, all the 



persecutions, and all the cruelties which malig- 
nant usurpers, clothed with the forms of law, can 
invent. 

Another objection which I have to this bill is, 
that the circumstances are such that it would not 
secure a fair expression of the opinion of the peo- 
ple of the Territory. We must look at things 
as they exist. Without being tedious, allow me, 
in a few words, to trace the history of the difficul- 
ties in Kansas. 

• To begin with: prior to 1854, this Territory 
was protected against the incursions of slavery. 
The Missouri compromise, says my highly-re- 
spected friend from Delaware, was unconstitu- 
tional. I disagree with him about that. I think 
it was as clearly constitutional as any act Con- 
gress could pass. Why Congress has not the 
right to keep negroes or slaves out of its terri- 
tory I never could conceive. The power to exclude 
white men cannot be denied. Congress had the 
right to prevent the settlement of a single human 
being in the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska 
up to this day, and for twenty years to come. 
When it could keep white people out, why not 
negroes? I do not wish, however, to go into that 
argument. The North, asageneralthing, regarded 
the Missouri compromise as a constitutional pro- 
vision; the country generally so regarded it. It 
was repealed. We all know the shock that its 
repeal gave to the country. It was unexpected — 
unasked for from any quarter; not a petition from 
any city, or town, or village, throughout this 
broad land, came here asking for its repeal; not a 
human being outside the precincts of Washing- 
ton city expected it. The country was shocked 
at the proposition; but when its repeal was ef- 
fected, under what circumstances was it ? It was 
under the pretense that it was necesssary in order 
to conform to the compromise measures of 1850. 
That was a false pretense. The compromise 
measures of 1850 did not require the repeal of 
the Missouri compromise; but they were entirely 
and perfectly consistent with its existence. The 
doctrine establi^ed in 1850 was the non-interven- 
tion doctrine; the let-alone doctrine; that is to 
say, when Congress came to organize a Terri- 
tory, if slavery existed there it was to be let alone: 
if it was free, it remained free; if there was a 
law prohibiting slavery, they did not repeal it. 
That was the non-intervention doctrine of 1850, 
and it is illustrated in the cases o<'Utah and New 
Mexico. There slavery was forbidden by a Mex- 
ican law, or by a number of Mexican laws. 
Congress did not repeal those laws, but it left 
them in existence; they are in full existence to- 
day, and slavery cannot legally exist iu either of 
those Territories, but is e5|>luded from them by 
positive law. 

When Congress came to organize the Terri- 
tories of Kansas and Nebraska, to have been con- 
sistent with tlie legislation of 1850 it should have 
1' ft the Territories, upon the subject of slavery, 
as it found them. Non-intervention was its doc- 
trine; and inasmuch as, when it came to organize 
those Territories, it found in existence a law 
which had been in existence for more than thirty 
years, prohibiting slavery, to have been consist- 
ent it should have left that law in full force; but 
Congress thought proper to depart from that 
policy. Even the chairman of the Committee on 
Territories, my colleague, stated at the time that 



it was a departure from the policy of 1850 to 
repeal the Missouri compromise. When it was 
repealed, the country was told it was not for the 
purpose of extending slavery; and when some of 
us in the North thought that that would be its 
effect, and objected to it, we were charged with 
misrepresenting the men who had advocated the 
repeal. We were told that it was a measure of 
freedom; that the compromise, by excluding 
slavery north of 36° 30', impliedly admitted it 
south of that line; and that, by its repeal, our 
northern people would go down and take posses- 
sion of the country south of that line. It was 
said here, on the floor of the Senate, that it was 
not a measure for the extension of slavery. It 
was said by members, both from the South and 
North, that slavery could never go into Kansas; i 
that soil and climate forbade it; that it would not 
be profitable there; and that the object in abol- 
ishing this compromise was not to introduce 
slavery. That was the understanding, but how 
has it been kept? The repeal of this compromise, 
which first shook the country, has been followed 
up by an attempt to force slavery into Kansas. 
The committee which has just returned from that 
Territory, and presented its report in the House 
of Representatives, a copy of which lies before 
me, shows that organizations were gotten up for 
the purpose of forcing slavery into Kansas, and 
that they have been effective for that purpose. 
That men went into that Territory, and resolved 
that slavery had a right to go there and should go 
there, long before any cmigraius from Massa- 
chusetts went into the Territory, this report 
shows conclusively. It also establishes the fact 
that the people of Kansas have been subjected to 
a foreign rule. The evidence of the fact is here 
made apparent. Many who voted at the elections 
have testified, and they show that the elections 
have been carried, in every instance, by men from 
abroad — by men from Missouri; that this so- 
called Legislature was a fraud; and that an at- 
tempt was made to carry slavery into Kansas, 
under the color of law, which, in my judgment, 
adds to the iniquity of the thing. It is worse for 
a man to do an illegal act under color of law than 
for him to do it without any pretense that he is 
acting in a lawful way. It is worse for an officer, 
charged to preserve the peace, to break it, than it 
is for a citizen upon whom no such particular 
obligation rests. 

After getting possession of the polls and elect- 
ing a Legislature, the next step was lo pass law« 
which would disfratichise those who wished to 
make Kansas a free State. There is no protec- 
tion for the free-State people in Kansas. They 
cannot get out of the difficulty in which they are 
involved, no matter how numerous they may be, 
because such restraints are imposed ufion thera 
that they cannot exercise the right of suffrage. > 
They will not take the oath lo support the fugi- 
tive slave law, and without taking it they cannot 
exercise the right of suffrage; so'that, although 
they may be ten to one of the inhabitants of the 
Territory, yet the eleventh man would control the 
elections; and the usurpers have so protected 
themselves by the forms of law, that there is no 
escape unless Congress grants relief. 

Persons assuming to act as officers under these 
pretended laws are scattered all over the Terri- 
tory, arresting free-State men under various pre- 



tenses; some of them are now lying in jail; many 
of them have been driven from the Territory; 
others have b.'en killed; and under this state of 
circumstances it is proposed to hold an election. 
1 say the parties are not on equal terms. While 
the canvass is guing on to elect membrrs to form 
■ a constitution, person.s acting under the color of 
law have it in their power to arrest every free- 
State settler in tho'Territory,and put him in con- ' 
finement. S nnething must be done to get rid of 
the pretended oilicers and hiws which have been 
forced upon Kansas by violence and fraud, before - 
a fair election can be held. It is admitted here by | 
the friends of the bill, that the indictments which 
have been gotten up for treason cannot be main- ; 
tained; that there is no such thing as constructive | 
treason in this country; and yet the leaders of j 
the free-State party are now in prison under this 
trumped-up charge. The officials in Kansap seem 
to be acting with a view to carry out the designs 
of the menVho invaded the Territory. Till they , 
are hurled from power, and the laws under which 
they profpss to act are wiped out; till the men 
unlawfully imprisoned are restored to liberty, and j 
those who have been forcibly driven away are | 
permitted peaceably to return; (ill the free presses J 
which have been wantonly destroyed are set up 
again; till the freedom of speech and of the press, ; 
which has been trampled down, is guarantied aiid j 
protected; and till the inhabitants are secured in 
the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, all 
of which are now in peril, it is idle to expect to 
obtain at the ballot-box a fair expression of the 
opinions of the actual settlers of ivansas. 

Let me trouble the Senate by reading a few 
paragraphs from the report of the committee just' 
returned from Kansas, to show the condition of 
things at this time in that Territory, and how the 
process of the law has been abused. The report 
has just iallcn under my observation. I had 
not time to read the whole of it, but I am very 
nuieii struck with the account it gives of the 
murder ot Brown, and the manner in which per- 
sons who make it their boast that they are " law 
and order men" execute the laws. The report 
states: c. 

'•Mr. Brown, with seven others who had accompanied 
him t'rom Leavenwortli, started ini their return home. 
VV|]( 1 thny Had proceeded a part of the way, liiey were 
^top|Jcd and taken prisonero by a party of men calUtd the 
Kickap.io Rangers, under the command ot' Captain Jolni 
W. Ma. tin. Tiicy were di-armi/d and taken back to Ea-ton, 
and put in DiiW.-:on'.s store, (232.) Brown was separati;d 
from tiie rrfsl ol his party, and taken into iIih office olE. S. 
Trotter, (29.3.) By tiiis" time several of Martin's party and 
Bome oi tliH citiz.wis of the place had become fntoxicaled, 
and expr ^^icd ;i di^terinination to kill Brown, (294.) Cap 
tain Maitia was desirou- to do, and did, all in hi:^ power to 
save him Si^vcral iKuirs were spent in discovering what 
should '.)•■ done with Urown, and his party. In the mean 
lime, withimt the kiiowled^ie of his party. Captain Martin 
liberated all of Brown's party Imt himself, and aided tln^n 
in their e^rap ■, (29.5.) The crowd n'peatedly tried to get in 
tlie room wliere Urowji was, and at one time succeeded, 
but were put out by Martin and others. Martin, finding 
that further effort on his part to save Brown was useless, 
left and went boine. The crowd then !;ot possession of 
Brown and finally huichercd him in euld b!ood. The wound 
of which he died was iiiflicted with ii lialeliet by a man of 
the name of Gih on. A ter he had been mortally wounded, 
Brown was seni hoiuv; with C larles Dunn, and died that 
night. No attempt was made to arrest or punish the mur- 
derers of Brown. Many of Ihein WJie well known citizens, 
and soEoeoftnem w^-re otfiei'rs of the law. On the next 
grand jury which sat in Leavenworth C(Min!y, the sheritt" 
BUininon.'d several of the persons implicated in this murder, 
(296.) One of thetu was M. P. Rively, at that time treas- 



urer of the county. He has been examined as a witness 
before us." 

Now tlip Senate will perceive that one of the 
very men engaged in the murder was a witness 
before the committee. 

" The reason he L'ives why no indictment-s were found is^ 
' they killed one of the pro s"lavery men,and the pro slavery 
men killed one of the others, and i thourjlit it was about 
mutual.' The same grand jury, however, fimnd bills of iii- 
riietnient against those who acted as judges of the free- 
State election. Rively says : ' I know our utmost endeavors 
were made to find out who acted as judges and clerks on 
the 17th of January last, and at all the bogus elections held 
by the Abolitionists here. We were very anxi.jus to find 
them 0!it, as we thought them acting illegally.' 

" Your commiftee, in their examinations, have found thai 
in no case of crime or homicide, mentioned in the report or 
in tlie testimony, has any indictment been found against the 
guilty party, except in the "lioinicide of Glaik by McCrea, 
McCrea being a free State man.*' 

The treasurer of the county, a man who aidecJ 
in butchering Brown, was examined before this 
commission, and say.s the grand jury, of which 
he was a •member, returned no indictment against 
the perpetrators of the deed. The committee say, 
in the conclusion of their feporl: 

I " That, iji the present condition of the Territory, a fair 

I election cannot be held without a new census, a stringent 

and Well guarded election law, tlie seleeiifm of impartial 

judges, and the presence of United Stales troops iit eveiy 

place of election." .., 

I They say further: 

I " That the various elections held by the people of th« 
I Territory preliminary to the tormation of the Slate govern- 
I m 'lit have been as rcL'ular as the distirrbed condition of the 
I Territory would allow; and that the constitntion parsed by 
i the convention held in pnr uinceof said elections im bodies 
j the will'ofa majority of tlie people." 

The S(Miator from Georgia wished to know if 
the free-State consiituiion imbodied the will of 
the people of Kansas; here is the evidence. It 
is ascertained tliat the number of voti'S cast for 
I the Topeka constitution wtts seventeen htindred 
and thirly-one — a good many more votes than 
W(.'re cast at any time iiy the pro-slavery pnrty 
who were actual settlers. Then, why not tidnfiit 
Kansas as a State under the confiituiion f )rmed 
at Topeka, and end the strife at once .' 

The bill under consideration is not a f lir prop- 
osition, and cannot be made ao until the parties 
to be affected by it are placed upon an equtil foot- 
ing. So long as free-State men are hunted over 
the Teri-itory, :uid liable to constant arrests on 
sham pr<icess in the hands of sham officers, there 
can be no fair election. It is a well-known f;\ct, 
that the principal and only convenicpt avenue to 
the Territory is in the hands of the pro-slavery 
party, and that no free-State settler is permitted 
to enter tin; Territory over that route. Several 
parties attennpting tt^o to Kansas by Wity of 
the Missouri river, nave been met and turned 
back within a few days. In my judgmeni, this 
bill, if it pass, will not give peace to the country. 
It will be said that advantage was taken in the 
first place, by the unjust repeal of the Missouri 
compromise; next, that an attempt was made to 
deceive the North by telling them that it was 
not intended to introdu'e shivery into Kansas; 
and that, in violation of such assurance, it has 
since been forced into it. The free-State men 
in the Territory allege that they are a conquered 
people; that they are frequently subjected to ar- 
rests on groundless charges, or without any cause 
whatever; that in numerous instances they have 



been plundered of their property, many of them 
driven from the Territory, and some murdered; 
that the pretended laws imposed upon them by 
their conquerors are, many of them, arbitrary and 
inhuman; that the Territory swarms with persons 

Erofessinof to act under color of law, who, aided 
y a numerous posse, are committing all manner 
of outr:i2;es upon the free-State settlers, arresting 
and confining ihem not on any criminal charge — 
for t!ie report of the Kansas committee shows but 
a single arrest for a criminal offense — but upon 
some trumped-up charge. 

The whole difficulties which led to the first siege 
of Lawrence, and to its second destruction, 
grew out of the issuing a peace warrant, as was 
shown by the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Wade] 
to-day; but he did not state anotlier fact — that 
the man, Branson, against whom the peace war- 
rant was sworn out, which was the occasion for 
Governor Shannon's calling out three thousand 
troops and besieging Lawrence, had been arrested 
since, taken to Lecompton, kept in prison for a 
time, and finally discharged, no one appearing 
against him. To hold an election in Kansas 
while the pro-slavery jiarty have the complete 
control of all the officials, both those appointed 
by the FedenJ Government and by the Legisla- 
ture of Missourians, and these officials having 
complete sway by the assistance of United States 
troops, and bogus laws, to destroy the printing 
presses, and imprison at pleasure free-State men, 
would be a perfect farce. 

We are asked, then, to amend this bill and make 
it pi'rfect; and a liberal spirit seems to be man- 
ifested on the part of some Senators to have a 
fair bill. It is difficult, I admit, to frame a bill 
that will give satisfaction to all; but to approach 
it, or to come near it, I think two things must be 
done. In tlfe first place, vou never can satisfy 
the country if slavi'ry is established in Kansas, 
and it asks for admission ",s a slave State, unless 
you first restore tin; prohibition of slavery, be- 
cause it is believed on the part of those who 
would oppose its admission as a slave Slatt',that 
an undue advantage has been taken. Now, sir, 
I am not one of those individuals who would 
make it a sine qua noi\, under all circumstances, 
to vote against the admission of a slave State into 
the Union. A case might be presented where I 
would vote to admit such a State; but, sir, may 
my right iiand lorget its cunning, and my tongui.' 
cleave to the roof of my mouih, b(;f()rL' 1 ever 
vote for the admission of a Slati- into this Uniini 
tolerating slavery in its constitution, forced upon 
it by fraud and by violence. Never, so help me 
God ! would I consent to it, and never do I believe 
the people of this country would. 

If Kansas should turn out to be a free State 
under this bill, and it were admitted, that would 
put an end to the strife — and God knows 1 wish 
It, though 1 should not have the least expecta- 
tion of such a result under the operation of this 
bill at the present time. 

But, to satisfy the country, as I have said, two 
things are necessary to be dcme. In the first 
.place, slavery should be excluded from Kansas 
while a Territory. Next, al>olish all the acts of 
the so-called Territorial Li'gislature, and dismiss 
from piace all persons pretending to hold office 
under it; tlien provide for a fair election, at a 
projier tiine,iuid if slavery should then be estab- 



lished in Kan«as by a fair vote of its bona fide 
settlers, it mi:;ht be assented to. The Senator 
from Louisiana [Mr. Benjamin] smiles at that. 
Is it any more unfair to exclude slavery than it 
is to exclude freedom? The SiMiator from Geor- 
gia says that the Territories are acquired by the 
common blood and treasure of the whole country,; 
and belonging to the whole country, the people 
from the whole of the country have a right to go 
to them with their property — not in so many 
words did he say so, but thai was the purport of 
his language. Is it any more unfair to the South 
to keep slaverj'' out until the people are numerous 
enough to form a Constitution fur themselves, 
than it is to the North to force it in.' When 
slavery is once introduced into a Territory, it will 
be very difficult to get it out, and establish a free 
State and a free constitution— jtist as difficult, I 
presume, as it would be to establish slavery in 
the formation of a State in which none at the 
time existed; and as I love liberty railier than 
slaver)', I prefer keeping a Territory free till it 
comes to form a State government. Slavery was , 
excluded from Kansas Territory while the Mis- 
souri compromise stood. The non-intervention 
principle of 185U was violated in order to intro- 
duce it. Restore that compromise; put it back; 
guard the elections as you intend to guard them 
by this bill; let the people havi' a fair chance; 
give time for them to return; and do one other 
thing— dismiss th(; territorial officials and abolish 
those odious, those infamous laws now being en- 
forced in the Territory, — and it may secure peace. 
No such consequences will follow the repeal of 
the pretended laws as the distinguished Senator 
from Kentucky supposed. They could not have 
a worse anarchy than reigns in Kansas to-day. 
The people are driven away from th^nr homes; 
no safety is to be found there. Numerous in- 
stances are given in the r.^port of the House 
committee, upon sworn testimony, siiowing that 
rnen have been stopped upon the road and their 
property taken from them; that houses havs 
been broken open and goods taken out. In- 
stances are given where men, claiming to be of 
the laio and order party, have gor.e into the fields 
and taken oxen from the plow and slaughtered 
them in their owners' presence. They have taken 
horses from their owners, without the semblance 
of law for so doing; and, in the name of Heaven, 
what protection is there in laws that tolerate such 
things as these.' 

So far from producing anarchy and. strife, it 
would have a tendency, I verily believe, to bring 
about quiet and peace, if all the territorial laws of 
Kansas were at once abolished, because it would 
take away from those who are now oppressing th« 
people and tram|>lingupon theirdearest rights, the 
pretense and the excuse which they have that they 
are doing it in the name of law. It would be folly 
to hold an election in Kansas with the present 
officials riding triumphant over the land, and 
driving men this way and the other at their will. 
You cannot expect a free election where a free 
press cannot live, and where men are liable to 
be taken up without any process, as the report 
of the Kansas committee shows has been often 
done. 

The time, the fearful time, predicted by the 
Senator from Delaware, will be upon us, and we 
shall see a crisis in this country more R'arful than 



8 



any that we have hitherto had, unless something 
is done at once to relieve the people of Kansas 
from the despotism under which they are now 
suffering. 1 should be glad— glad indeed, if this 
bill could be put in such a form as would give 
peace to the country. But as it is now, I believe 
that it will do no such thing. It gives no imme- 
diate relief. We must wa'it for six months, at 
least, and perhaps a year, before it can become 
effective, let it result as it may. In the mean 
time it makes no provision whatever for the gov- 
ernment of the Territory. It was because of the 
emergency of the case — because I saw an attempt, 
under the pretense of law, to enforce the most 
arbitrary and tyrannical acts, that I made the 
proposition I did to abolish those pretended laws, 
dismiss the self-constituted officials, and place 
Kansas temporarily under the territorial laws of 
Nebraska. But if that is objected to, let the 
Senator from Georgia put into his bill a frame of 
laws protecting the rights of parlies and of the 
settlers till they can have an opportunity to frame 
laws for themselves. 

It is said that persons have died, estates have 



descended, marriages have taken place, and chil- 
dren been born, under the existing territorial 
laws, (so called,) and that to abolish them will 
destroy vested rights. If there is any danger 
that the dead will be unburied, parties unmarried, 
and children unborn, because of the nullity of 
the so-called territorial acts, let us pass an act 
giving validity to the contracts which have been 
made and the acts which have been done under 
; these supposed laws. Then amend the bill before 
j us so as to restore the free-State settlers to some- 
' thing like an equality of rights, by wiping out 
of existence the odious laws which have been 
imposed upon the Territory; by dismissing the 
i officials who, assuming to act under them, have 
[ lorded it over and oppressed all free-State men; 
; by expelling from the Territory the slaves who 
have been forced into it in violation of law, and 
j by fixing a suitable time for the election, — and 
there would be something like fairness in the 
proposition, and some hope of giving peace to 
the country; but in its present form, it will fail, 
utterly fail, in my judgment, to accomplish the 
object. 



Printed at the Office of the Congressional Globe. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




016 094 450 P € 



u 



